Batch Allocation for Tasks with Overlapping Skill Requirements in Crowdsourcing

Existing studies on crowdsourcing often adopt the retail-style allocation approach, in which tasks are allocated individually and independently. However, such retail-style task allocation has the following problems: 1) each task is executed independently from scratch, thus the execution of one task seldom utilize the results of other tasks and the requester must pay in full for the task; 2) many workers only undertake a very small number of tasks contemporaneously, thus the workers’ skills and time may not be fully utilized. We observe that many complex tasks in real-world crowdsourcing platforms have similar skill requirements and long deadlines. Based on these real-world observations, this paper presents a novel batch allocation approach for tasks with overlapping skill requirements. Requesters’ real payment can be discounted because the real execution cost of tasks can be reduced due to batch allocation and execution, and each worker's real earnings may increase because he/she can undertake more tasks contemporaneously. This batch allocation optimization problem is proved to be NP-hard. Then, two types of heuristic approaches are designed: layered batch allocation and core-based batch allocation. The former approach mainly utilizes the hierarchy pattern to form all possible batches, which can achieve better performance but may require higher computational cost since all possible batches are formed and observed; the latter approach selects core tasks to form batches, which can achieve suboptimal performance with lower complexity and significantly reduce computational cost. With the theoretical analyses and experiments on a real-world Upwork dataset in which the proposed approaches are compared with the previous benchmark retail-style allocation approach, we find that our approaches have better performances in terms of total payment by requesters and average income of workers, as well as maintaining close successful task completion probability and consuming less task allocation time.

[1]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[2]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside , 2010, UIST.

[3]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[4]  Alessandro Bozzon,et al.  Choosing the right crowd: expert finding in social networks , 2013, EDBT '13.

[5]  Stefan Siersdorfer,et al.  Groupsourcing: Team Competition Designs for Crowdsourcing , 2015, WWW.

[6]  Bo An,et al.  Towards Efficient Team Formation for Crowdsourcing in Non-Cooperative Social Networks , 2016 .

[7]  Yunhao Liu,et al.  Robust Trajectory Estimation for Crowdsourcing-Based Mobile Applications , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems.

[8]  L. Green,et al.  A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. , 2004, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  Aijun An,et al.  Efficient Bi-objective Team Formation in Social Networks , 2012, ECML/PKDD.

[10]  Michael Kearns,et al.  Depth-Workload Tradeoffs for Workforce Organization , 2013, HCOMP.

[11]  Luca Becchetti,et al.  The Importance of Being Expert: Efficient Max-Finding in Crowdsourcing , 2015, SIGMOD Conference.

[12]  Jan van Dalen,et al.  The measurement of labour productivity in wholesaling , 1990 .

[13]  Ming Yin,et al.  The Communication Network Within the Crowd , 2016, WWW.

[14]  Wanyuan Wang,et al.  Multiagent-Based Allocation of Complex Tasks in Social Networks , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing.

[15]  Bo An,et al.  Context-Aware Reliable Crowdsourcing in Social Networks , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems.

[16]  Hai Jin,et al.  Minimizing Inter-Server Communications by Exploiting Self-Similarity in Online Social Networks , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems.

[17]  Stéphane Bressan,et al.  An efficient and truthful pricing mechanism for team formation in crowdsourcing markets , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC).

[18]  Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis,et al.  The Dynamics of Micro-Task Crowdsourcing: The Case of Amazon MTurk , 2015, WWW.

[19]  Carl F. Mela,et al.  The Dynamic Effect of Discounting on Sales: Empirical Analysis and Normative Pricing Implications , 1999 .

[20]  Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis,et al.  Estimating the Completion Time of Crowdsourced Tasks Using Survival Analysis Models , 2011 .

[21]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Efficient Crowdsourcing of Unknown Experts using Multi-Armed Bandits , 2012, ECAI.

[22]  Xi Fang,et al.  Incentive Mechanisms for Crowdsensing: Crowdsourcing With Smartphones , 2016, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[23]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Team Dating: A Self-Organized Team Formation Strategy for Collaborative Crowdsourcing , 2016, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[24]  Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,et al.  Crowdsourcing Complex Workflows under Budget Constraints , 2015, AAAI.

[25]  Anthony T. Chronopoulos,et al.  Algorithmic mechanism design for load balancing in distributed systems , 2004, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B.

[26]  Mary L. Gray,et al.  The Crowd is a Collaborative Network , 2016, CSCW.

[27]  Nuno Silva,et al.  A survey of task-oriented crowdsourcing , 2015, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[28]  Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,et al.  BudgetFix: budget limited crowdsourcing for interdependent task allocation with quality guarantees , 2014, AAMAS.

[29]  Agostino Poggi,et al.  Social Media for Online Collaboration in Firms and Organizations , 2016, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des..